CAR_Public/090831.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 31, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 171
  
                           Headlines

AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Phoenix Over Auto Insurance Practices
AMSHER COLLECTION: Delinquent Debtors Hate Humiliating Mailings
ASPARTAME MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.
AON CORP: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Pending Approval
AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of RICO Claims Dismissal Pending

AON CORP: Former Unit Defends Suit Over Unearned Premium Refunds
BABY JOGGER: Recalls 41,000 Strollers
CLARK HOLDINGS: To Defend vs. Fuel Surcharges Complain in N.J.
DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Action Suit Tossed
EXPEDIA: Future Travel Credit Seen as Best Settlement Option

FINCORP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action Lawsuit
FLORIDA RED-LIGHT CAMERAS: Lawyers Racing to Bring 'Em to a Halt
FRIGIDAIRE: Recalling 200,000 Electric Ranges
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Changes to 1998 Heating Vent Pipe Recall
IKEA HOME: Recalling 500 IKEA KARLSTAD Sofa-Beds

IKEA HOME: Roman Shade Recall
LEWIS HYMAN: Roll-Up Blind & Roman Shade Recalls
MAYTAG CORP: Expands Recall of Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard
MGM MIRAGE: Receives Shareholder Suit & Says It Has No Merit
NVIDIA CORP: October 19 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss

NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 1 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit
QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls 500 Girls' Waist-Drawstring Hoodies
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Defective Odometer Suit Survives
TIME INC: Sports Illustrated Promotion Comes Under Fire

TOTAL CALL: Settles "Coppolino" Pre-Paid Calling Card Litigation
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Roman Shade Recall

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Shareholder Suit Filed in San Francisco
BEAR ESCENTUALS: Scott+Scott File Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.
CARDIONET INC: Bernard Gross Files Shareholder Suit in E.D. Pa.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Files Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.

                           *********

AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Phoenix Over Auto Insurance Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Family Mutual
Insurance Co. wrongfully denies claims for uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverage, a class action filed in Maricopa
County Court in Phoenix, Ariz., claims.  A copy of the complaint
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Insure.pdf


AMSHER COLLECTION: Delinquent Debtors Hate Humiliating Mailings
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action claims Amsher Collection Services, based in
Birmingham, Ala., humiliates people by sending letters with its
business name prominently displayed on the envelopes, according
to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota and obtained by Courthouse News Service.  A copy of
the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Collections.pdf


ASPARTAME MANUFACTURERS: Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ajinomoto, Monsanto, Nutrasweet and others conspired to
monopolize the market for aspartame, an artificial sweetener,
according to an antitrust class action in Philadelphia Federal
Court and reviewed by Courthouse News Service reports.  A copy of
the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/Aspartame.pdf


AON CORP: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Pending Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the federal securities class action
suit against Aon Corp. is awaiting final court approval.

The company is a defendant in several purported class-action
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging violations of either the securities laws or the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Beginning in late October 2004, several putative securities
class-action suits were filed against Aon in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The first
securities fraud lawsuit, Wolintz v. Aon Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 04-cv-06962 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Oct. 28, 2004.

Also beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA
class-action suits were filed against Aon.  The first ERISA
lawsuit, Kahn v. Aon Corporation, et al, Case No. 04-cv-06965
(N.D. Ill.), was filed on Oct. 28, 2004.

Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action submitted
purported expert reports estimating a range of alleged damages of
$353 million to $490 million, and plaintiffs in the ERISA class
actions submitted revised purported expert reports estimating a
range of alleged damages of $74 million to $349 million.  Aon
submitted expert reports in opposition concluding that
plaintiffs' theories of liability and causation are meritless and
that, in any event, plaintiffs incurred no damages.  

In June 2009, Aon reached agreement on a proposed settlement of
the federal securities class action under which Aon would pay $30
million to the class.  This settlement is subject to a process
requiring final approval by the trial court and a possible
appeal, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

On June 12, 2009, Aon entered into two settlement agreements with
XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd. resulting in the receipt of $26
million by Aon.  The agreements resolve, among other things, a
lawsuit between XL and Aon relating to whether XL's policy
covered losses relating to, among other things, these matters.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


AON CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal of RICO Claims Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several purported class-action suits against
Aon Corp. that allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act are appealing the dismissal of their
claims by the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Beginning in June 2004, a number of putative class-action suits
were filed against Aon and other companies by purported classes
of clients under a variety of legal theories, including state
tort, contract, fiduciary duty, antitrust and statutory theories
and federal antitrust and RICO theories.

The federal actions were consolidated with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and a state court
collective action was filed in California.

In the New Jersey actions, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
federal antitrust and RICO claims in separate orders in August
and October 2007.  The plaintiffs have appealed these
dismissals.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


AON CORP: Former Unit Defends Suit Over Unearned Premium Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corp.'s former Resource Life Insurance Company subsidiary is
defending a putative class action captioned Buckner v. Resource
Life, in state court in Columbus, Georgia.

The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies
insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and
return unearned premium to policyholders whose loans terminated
before the end of their scheduled terms.  

In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed
to indemnify Resource Life's buyer in certain respects relating
to this action.  

In April 2009, a magistrate appointed by the court recommended
that the court issue an order holding, inter alia, that a large
number of policyholders should be presumed to be entitled to
unearned premium refunds of as-yet-undetermined amounts.

The court has not yet determined whether to accept the
recommendation or whether to certify a class, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.


BABY JOGGER: Recalls 41,000 Strollers
-------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baby Jogger LLC, of Richmond, Va., initiated a voluntary recall
of about 41,000 Baby Jogger City Mini Strollers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The stroller's restraint buckle could break or unlatch allowing
the child or infant to fall out.

No injuries have been reporter.  

This recall involves Baby Jogger City Mini single and double
strollers.  "City Mini" is printed on the stroller.  Item numbers
and date codes included in this recall are listed at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09334.html

The item number is printed on a sticker on the rear wheel
crossbar.  The manufacturing date code is engraved on the frame
behind the rear wheel axle crossbar or on the back of the frame
on the upright bar between the right rear wheel and the seat.

The strollers were sold at juvenile products stores, mass
merchandisers, and department stores nationwide and on various
Web sites including www.amazon.com from November 2007 through
July 2009 for between $220 and $400.  The strollers were
manufactured in China.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers
and contact Baby Jogger to receive a free replacement restraint
buckle and installation instructions.

For additional information, contact Baby Jogger at 877-506-2213
between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET, e-mail the firm at
recall@babyjogger.com, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.babyjogger.com/

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


BEAR LAKE: Acknowledges Receipt of Shareholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rick Owen at Northern News reports that Bear Lake Gold Ltd. has
been served notice that a class action lawsuit in which Gary
Henault alleges that Bear Lake and others made certain
misrepresentations in July about the company's Larder Lake
project.  Bear Lake Gold in response to the allegations intends
to vigorously defend itself and its assets.  The lawsuit was
filed in the Ontario Superior Court earlier this month by Scott
Selig, Esq., at Siskinds LLP.  

Siskinds has also indicated that it's particularly interested in
speaking to investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold
Ltd. in the June 2009 or October 2008 private placements of Bear
Lake Gold securities, which were underwritten by PI Financial,
Primary Capital and Dundee Securities.

Mr. Henault is represented by:

          Scott Selig, Esq.
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          P.O. Box 2520
          London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3V8
          Phone: (519) 672-2121
          Fax: (519) 672-6065
          E-mail: scott.selig@siskinds.com


CLARK HOLDINGS: To Defend vs. Fuel Surcharges Complain in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Holdings Inc. intends to defend a putative class action
complaint filed by Multi-Media International in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to its Aug. 20,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2009.

On July 10, 2009, Multi-Media filed a complaint against The Clark
Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Clark Distribution Systems,
Inc., Highway Distribution Systems, Inc. and Evergreen Express
Lines, Inc., and its international operations through its
subsidiary, Clark Worldwide Transportation, Inc.  Multi-Media is
seeking class action status alleging, among other things:

   (i) common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent
       misrepresentation, conversion and unjust enrichment,

  (ii) violation of N.J. Stat. Sections 56:8-2 and

(iii) breach of good faith and fair dealing, relating to
       alleged excessive fuel surcharges by Clark subsidiaries.  

The complaint alleges a class period from June 25, 2002, through
June 25, 2009.

On behalf of the putative class, plaintiff seeks to recover the
alleged excessive fuel charges, enjoin the alleged improper
calculation of fuel charges by defendants and impose punitive
damages and attorney's fees.

The complaint did not specify an amount of damages; however a
prior complaint seeking similar relief on behalf of the same
class, which was withdrawn, sought compensatory damages in the
amount of $10 million and punitive damages in the amount of $30
million.  

Clark Holdings Inc. -- http://www.glacteam.com-- formerly
Global Logistics Acquisition Corporation, is a transportation
management and logistics services company whose core business is
the shipment of mass market consumer magazines throughout the
U.S. and between the United States and other countries.  The
company was a blank check company formed primarily to effect a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other
similar business combination with an operating business in the
transportation and logistics sector and related industries.  It
did not engage in any substantive commercial business until it
consummated its business combination with The Clark Group, Inc.
(CGI) on Feb. 12, 2008.  Clark owns Clark Distribution Systems
Inc. (CDS) and Highway Distribution Systems Inc., through which
the company conducts its domestic operations; and Clark
Worldwide Transportation Inc. (CWT), which carries out
operations overseas. Holdings is considered to be in the
development stage.


DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Shareholder Class Action Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that The National Law Journal reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class action against
the former officers and directors of Downey Financial Corp., a
mortgage lender that filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in November.  
"It's the first instance where a court has dismissed with
prejudice a complaint filed against the former management of a
financial institution that's been taken over by the FDIC," said
the attorney who defended Downey, referring to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp.'s takeover of financial institutions
during the mortgage crisis.  The full story is available at
http://editorial.incisivemedia.com/c/12cxEDPvetCOFDKgbiat no  
charge.  


EXPEDIA: Future Travel Credit Seen as Best Settlement Option
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachelle Reitz at Examiner.com reports that "Expedia made a smart
offer to consumers standing to benefit from the class action
settlement resulting from its former practice of bundling taxes
and fees which made taxes appear to be more."

Ms. Reitz relates that the email she received (as one of those
consumers) gives her the option of receiving a cash payment,
objecting to the settlement, or requesting exclusion.  But a
fourth option offers her approximately 2.17 times more Expedia
credit for future bookings if she chooses that option over cash
payment.

"This is a savvy move on Expedia's parts as old customers become
return customers in an attempt to get the best return," Ms. Reitz
says.  "Without a clear idea of how much is coming, many of us
will probably trade in a few dollars for a small amount of credit
and then either decide to use that credit (and why not?) or will
forget about it in time. But there's always the chance that
Expedia will woo back old clients and solidify relationships with
current ones. And save themselves a little bit in the process."


FINCORP: Slater & Gordon Launches Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that a class action has been launched
against the trustee of failed property group, Fincorp.  Law firm  
Slater & Gordon, launched a statement of claim against Sandhurst
Trustees in late August 2009.  Fincorp investors claim that the
trustee failed in its duty to protect their interests.  Fincorp
collapsed in March 2007, but investors feel that Sandhurst should
have been aware of its financial problems as early as December
2004.


FLORIDA RED-LIGHT CAMERAS: Lawyers Racing to Bring 'Em to a Halt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida lawyers are racing to put a stop to red-light traffic
cameras, a story from The Associated Press appearing in the Sun-
Sentinel says.  

In the past two weeks, the story relates, several hundred drivers
from throughout the state have joined class action suits filed
against Aventura, Miami Gardens, Juno Beach and Orlando.  Jason
Weisser, Esq., leading the latest charge, tells the AP he plans
to file a lawsuit against Pembroke Pines, North Miami, Homestead
and 16 other local governments in the next two weeks.  

The full story is available at http://is.gd/2BSiI

FRIGIDAIRE: Recalling 200,000 Electric Ranges
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Frigidaire, a division of Electrolux Home Products Inc., of
Augusta, Ga., initiated a voluntary recall of about 200,000
Frigidaire and Kenmore Elite Smoothtop Electric Ranges.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Depending on the model, the surface heating elements can: 1) turn
on spontaneously without being switched on; 2) fail to turn off
after being switched off; or, 3) heat to different temperatures
than selected.  This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

Frigidaire has received 126 reports of incidents, including four
reports of minor burns and two reports of minor property damage.

This recall involves Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, Frigidaire
Professional and Kenmore Elite smoothtop electric ranges with
rotary knobs and digital displays.  The following model and
serial numbers are included in the recall:

Frigidaire (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx - VF831xxxxx) and
Models Beginning with:

     FEFBZ90GC     
     FEFLMC55GC     
     FEFLZ87GC        

     GLEF396AB
     GLEF396AQ
     GLEF396AS
     GLEF396CQ
     GLEF396CS

     GLEFM397DB  
     GLEFM397DQ
     GLEFM397DS
     GLEFM97FPB
     GLEFM97FPW
     GLEFM97GPB
     GLEFM97GPW  

     LEEFM389FE  

     PLEF398AC
     PLEF398CC
     PLEF398DC
     PLEFM399DC  
     PLEFMZ99EC
     PLEFMZ99GC
     PLEFZ398EC
     PLEFZ398GC

Kenmore Elite (Serial Number Range VF122xxxxx - VF334xxxxx) and
Models Beginning with:

     790.99012   
     790.99013   
     790.99014   
     790.99019

The model and serial number can be found by opening the range
drawer at the base of the unit.

The appliances were sold at Sears and other national chain and
independent retailers nationwide from June 2001 through August
2009 for between $1,000 and $2,500, and were manufactured in the
United States.  

Consumers should stop using the recalled ranges immediately and
contact Frigidaire or Sears to schedule a free repair.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Frigidaire
at (800) 449-9812 between 8 a.m. and midnight ET Monday through
Saturday or visit the firm's recall Web site at
http://www.smoothtoprangerecall.com/ Consumers who purchased  
their products at Sears should call Sears at (800) 449-9810
between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday.

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Changes to 1998 Heating Vent Pipe Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The CPSC and Goodman Manufacturing Company, of Houston, Tex., are
urging consumers who have not yet responded to the previously
announced 1998 recall to do so immediately.  After October 1,
2009, the remedy consumers receive will change to be identical to
modifications recently announced for a related recall.

The recall included about 10,000 Plexvent and Ultravent HTPV pipe
systems attached to certain Goodman mid-efficiency furnaces
manufactured from October 1988 to July 1994 (models GUP, GDP,
GUPS, GDPS, GUPI, GDPI, GUPX, GDPX, GMP and GMPV for the
following brands manufactured by Goodman: Janitrol, GMC, Hamilton
Electric, Franklin, Liberty and Sears/Kenmore).  The HTPV pipe
used for these vents could be susceptible to corrosion, cracking
and joint separation, which could result in the release of carbon
monoxide (CO) into living areas, posing a danger to consumers.
Goodman did not manufacture the HTPV pipe.

Plexvent owners and Ultravent owners who initiated valid claims
on or before October 1, 2009, with remediation completed and
required documentation submitted by January 1, 2010, will receive
(A) a new, professionally-installed venting system free of charge
or (B) a new, high-efficiency Goodman furnace and suitable vent
for the manufacturer's price (of just the furnace), with no
charge for labor, associated materials or dealer markup.

Plexvent owners who initiated valid claims after October 1, 2009,
will receive a rebate up to $400 toward either an HTPV
replacement system, or a new, high-efficiency furnace from
Goodman that does not require HTPV.

Ultravent owners who initiated valid claims after Octover 1,
2009, will receive a rebate up to $250 toward either an HTPV
replacement system, or a new, high-efficiency furnace from
Goodman that does not require HTPV.
Consumers who register after October 1, 2009 and who choose to
repair their systems will be responsible for up-front payment of
parts, labor and permits, and will be responsible for arranging
to have the work performed.

Consumers should determine whether they have a recalled HTPV pipe
system by checking the vent pipes attached to their natural gas
furnace.

Vent pipes subject to this recall can be identified as follows:

     -- the vent pipes are plastic;

     -- the vent pipes are colored gray or black;

     -- "Plexvent," "Plexvent II" or "Ultravent" is stamped on
        the vent pipe or printed on stickers placed on pieces
        used to connect the vent pipes; and

     -- the vent pipes are located on furnaces and the pipes go
        through the sidewalls of structures.

Other plastic vent pipes, such as white PVC, are not included in
the recall.

Owners of Goodman furnaces that are vented with HTPV pipe should
immediately call Goodman at (800) 394-8084 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Central time, Monday through Friday.  CPSC reminds all
consumers to have fuel-burning appliances professionally
inspected each year to check for cracks or separations in the
vents that could allow CO to leak into the home. In addition,
CPSC recommends that every home should have at least one CO
alarm.

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at:

          https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


IKEA HOME: Recalling 500 IKEA KARLSTAD Sofa-Beds
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of approximately 500 IKEA KARLSTAD sofa-beds.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The mattress and seat cushions intended to be used as a mattress
fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard for
mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No injuries were reported.

The recalled product is the IKEA KARLSTAD sofa-bed frame, article
number 801-215-12, supplier number 20789, with date stamps (YYWW)
0845 through 0927 located on a label attached to the underside of
the sofa-bed frame.  The mattress topper is not affected by this
recall.

The sofa-beds were sold at IKEA stores nationwide from November
2008 through July 2009 for about $850, and were manufactured in
Mexico.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the mattress and cushions
and contact IKEA or visit the Returns and Exchange Department at
their local IKEA store to arrange free installation of a
replacement mattress and seat cushions.

For more information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


IKEA HOME: Roman Shade Recall
-----------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of approximately 120,000 MELINA Roman Blinds.  

Strangulations can occur when a child places their neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
their neck.  The Roman blind has a continuous looped bead chain
that when not attached to the wall or floor, hangs loosely by the
blind, posing a strangulation hazard to children.

CPSC and IKEA received a report of a two-year-old boy who
suffered a near strangulation. His mother found him hanging from
the looped bead chain.

This recall includes all sizes and colors of MELINA Roman blinds.
These blinds have a sewn-in label at the top edge of the blind
with the IKEA logotype, article name (MELINA), 5-digit supplier
number 19395, four digit date stamp (YYWW) and the words "Made in
Taiwan". On the bottom edge of the blind there is a sewn-in
orange or white safety warning label.  The blinds are made from
100% polyester.

The shades were sold at IKEA stores nationwide from August 2006
through June 2008 for between $20 and $40.  The shades were
manufactured in Taiwan.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Roman blinds
and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at
(888) 966-4532 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ikea-usa.com/

CPSC reminds consumers to examine all Roman Blinds and shades in
their homes.  If looped pull cords are present or exposed inner
cords are found on the back of blinds or shades and children are
in the home or occasionally visit your home, please consider
replacing them with blinds or shades that do not have exposed
pull cords or inner cords.


LEWIS HYMAN: Roll-Up Blind & Roman Shade Recalls
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lewis Hyman, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of 4.2 million
roll-up blinds and 600,000 Roman shades after determining that
strangulations can occur if the lifting loops slide off the side
of the blind and a child's neck becomes entangled on the free-
standing loop or if a child places their neck between the lifting
loop and the roll-up blind material.

In November 2007, a one-year-old boy from Norridgewock, Maine,
became entangled and strangled in the lift cord loop of a roll-up
blind that had fallen into his portable crib.  In October 2008, a
13-month-old boy from Conway, Ark., was found with his head
between the exposed inner cord and the cloth on the backside of a
Roman shade. The cord was not looped around the boy's neck but
rather ran from ear to ear and strangled the child.

This recall involves roll-up blinds without release clips and all
Woolrich Roman shades.  The roll-up blinds have plastic oval-
shaped slats that measure about 1/4-inch tall. The blinds measure
either 72" or 96" long.  The bottom rail has a WARNING label
advising that "Young children can become entangled and strangle
in cord or bead loops" and a label that reads "Lewis Hyman, Inc."
and the year of manufacture.  Roll-up blinds that have release
clips right below the head rail on the backside of the blind are
not included in this recall.

The Woolrich Roman shades come in twill fabric and micro-suede
fabric and measure 72" long.  The head rail has two labels that
read "Lewis Hyman, Inc., www.lewishymaninc.com" and "LHI, 005301,
Made in China" respectively.

The Roman shades were sold exclusively at Target stores
nationwide and on Target.com from March 2006 through December
2008 for between $25 and $43.  The roll-up blinds were sold at
retail stores nationwide from January 1999 through December 2003
for between $6 and $20.  

The blinds and shades were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately check the backside of the roll-up
blinds to determine if they have release clips.  If the roll-up
blind does not have release clips, stop using it immediately and
contact Lewis Hyman for a free repair kit.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact Lewis Hyman for a free repair kit. The repair kits for
the Roman shades will be available by the end of September.

For additional information, contact Lewis Hyman toll-free at
(877) 354-5457 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific time, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.lewishymaninc.com/recall


LIQUITATION OUTLET: Lead Fears Promps Action Figure Toys Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liquidation Outlet, Inc., of Lakewood, Wash., initiated a
voluntary recall of about 8,400 Force Soldier Playsets, Pirate
Expeditions with Parrot, and Pirate Expeditions with Treasure.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The action figure toys have surface paints which contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

No injuries were reported.

The Force Soldier playsets comes in a plastic bag with SKU number
70134 printed on the header card.  The soldiers (two per bag) are
5" in height and come with an airplane, machine guns and a
tropical tree.  The Pirate Expeditions come in a blister packs in
two styles with the SKU number 70136 printed on the header cards.
Pirate Expedition figures are 6.5" in height and have assorted
accessories including a parrot or a treasure chest.

The toys were sold at Dollar Stores in Washington and Oregon
States from September 2007 through July 2009 for $1, and were
manufactured in China.  

Consumers should take the recalled products away from young
children immediately and return them to the place of purchase for
a full refund or exchange for another toy.

For additional information, contact Liquidation Outlet, Inc.
toll-free at (877) 257-5990 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT
Monday through Friday, or e-mail info@loidistributing.com or
visit one of the Dollar Stores in person.

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


MAYTAG CORP: Expands Recall of Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maytag Corp., of Newton, Iowa, announced a voluntary recall of
approximately 46,000 more Maytag(R), Magic Chef(R)Performa by
Maytag(R) and Crosley(R) brand refrigerators.  Approximately 1.6
million units were previously recalled March 2009.  

An electrical failure in the relay, the component that turns on
the refrigerator's compressor, can cause overheating and pose a
serious fire hazard.

Maytag has received 23 additional reports of refrigerator relay
ignition, including 4 reports of property damage ranging from
smoke damage to extensive kitchen damage.

The recall includes certain Maytag(R), Magic Chef(R),. Performa
by Maytag(R) and Crosley(R) brand side-by-side and top freezer
refrigerators.  The affected refrigerators were manufactured in
black, bisque, white and stainless steel.  They have model and
serial numbers printed on a label located on the top middle or
left upper side of the refrigerator liner and have:

                Serial Numbers            Model Numbers
                  ENDING with   - and -   BEGINNING with
                ---------------           --------------
Side by Side
Refrigerators     CN, CP, YY, YX                    MZ

Top Freezer
Refrigerators   CA, CC, CE, CG,           CT15G4, CTB152, CTL151,
                ZB, ZD, ZF, ZH            CTM152, CTN151, MTB195,
                                          MTB215, MTB245, MTF195,
                                          MTF215, PTB155, PTB175,
                                          PTB195, PTB215

Refrigerators with freezers on the bottom are not included in
this recall.

The refrigeration units were sold at department and appliance
stores and by homebuilders nationwide from September 2000 through
May 2004 for between about $350 and $1,600.

The appliances were manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should immediately contact Maytag to determine if their
refrigerator is included in the recall and if so, to schedule a
free in-home repair. Consumers should not return the refrigerator
to the retailer where it was purchased.

For more information, contact Maytag toll-free at (866) 533-9817
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at:

                http://www.repair.maytag.com/

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product.  Tell the CPSC
about it by visiting https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


MGM MIRAGE: Receives Shareholder Suit & Says It Has No Merit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowinger on August 19, 2009, filed in the U.S. District
Court in the District of Nevada a purported class action against
defendants MGM MIRAGE, J. Terrence Lanni, James J. Murren, Daniel
J. D'Arrigo and Robert H. Baldwin alleging federal securities
laws violations.  The complaint includes two counts: (i)
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants, and
(ii) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against the individual defendants.  In the complaint,
the Plaintiff alleges that, between August 2, 2007 and March 5,
2009, the defendants disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading statements that misled the investing public
regarding the Company's business, operations, management and
intrinsic value of its common stock.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in the
complaint are without merit.  The Company will vigorously defend
against the claims but there can be no assurance that the outcome
of the proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company.

                        About MGM MIRAGE

Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, MGM MIRAGE (NYSE: MGM) --
http://www.mgmmirage.com/-- is a hotel and gaming company.  It  
owns and operates 17 properties located in Nevada, Mississippi
and Michigan, and has investments in three other properties in
Nevada, New Jersey and Illinois.

At June 30, 2009, the Company had $22.4 billion in total assets,
including $1.07 billion in total current assets; $1.23 billion in
total current liabilities, $3.58 billion in deferred income
taxes, $12.3 billion in long-term debt, $186.7 million in other
long-term obligations; and $5.04 billion in stockholders' equity.


NVIDIA CORP: October 19 Hearing Set for Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 19, 2009, hearing date has been set for an anticipated
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated consumer class-action
case against NVIDIA Corp.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative
consumer class-action lawsuits were filed against the company,
asserting various claims arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of the company's previous
generation MCP and GPU products used in notebook systems.  Most
of the lawsuits were filed in Federal Court in the Northern
District of California, but three were filed in state court in
California, in Federal Court in New York, and in Federal Court
in Texas.  Those three actions have since been removed or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, where all of the actions now
are currently pending.

The various lawsuits are titled:

   -- Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Feinstein v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
      Hewlett Packard,

   -- Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett Packard,

   -- Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc.,

   -- Cormier v. NVIDIA Corp.,

   -- National Business Officers Association, Inc. v. NVIDIA
      Corp., and

   -- West v. NVIDIA Corp.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2008, which no
longer asserted claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints
assert claims for, among other things, breach of
warranty, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Business & Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and other
consumer protection statutes under the laws of various
jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the above
cases related under the relevant local rules.  On Dec. 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.

On Feb. 26, 2009, the District Court consolidated the cases, as
well as two other cases pending against Hewlett-Packard, under
the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and ordered the
plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2, 2009.

On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain
related issues.

On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead
counsel.

On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On May 14, 2009, the District Court entered a case schedule
order, which sets a Sept. 28, 2009 hearing date for an
anticipated motion to dismiss, a Dec. 7, 2009 hearing date for
anticipated class certification motion, and a July 12, 2010 fact
discovery deadline.

The District Court subsequently entered an order resetting the
hearing date for an anticipated motion to dismiss for Oct. 19,
2009, based on a stipulation of the parties, according to the
company's Aug. 20, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 26,
2009.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com/-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 1 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is scheduled for Sept. 1, 2009, in the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
NVIDIA Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

In September 2008, three putative securities class-action suits
were filed in the District Court arising out of its announcements
on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against cost of
revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a
weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the
company's previous generation media and communications processors
or MCPs and graphics processing units or GPUs and that the
company was revising financial guidance for its second quarter of
fiscal 2009.

The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On Oct. 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated into In re NVIDIA
Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-
JW (HRL).

Pursuant to the order consolidating the lawsuits, NVIDIA is not
obligated to respond to any of the underlying complaints.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were due by Nov. 10, 2008.  A hearing on these
motions is currently scheduled for Dec. 22, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation
of co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.

On Feb. 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the District
Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending
resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay.  The Writ is
still pending in the Court of Appeals, according to the company's
Aug. 20, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 26, 2009.

NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the
provision of programmable graphics processor technologies.  The
Company's products are designed to generate realistic,
interactive graphics on consumer and professional computing
devices.  It serves the entertainment and consumer market with
its GeForce products, the professional design and visualization
market with its Quadro products, and the computing market with
its Tesla products.  It has four product-line segments: the GPU
Business, the professional solutions business (PSB), the media
and communications processor (MCP), business, and the consumer
products business (CPB).  Its GPU business consists of its
GeForce products that support desktop and notebook personal
computers (PCs), plus memory products.  Its PSB consists of its
NVIDIA Quadro professional workstation products and other
professional graphics products, including its NVIDIA Tesla
computing products.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Acknowledges Receipt of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that Partner Communications Company Ltd.
disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit requesting
certification as a class action.  The case was filed against
Partner, another cellular operator and two content providers and
integrators in the District Court of Petach-Tikva.

The claim alleges that Partner charged subscribers for certain
content services, without their consent.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
of claim against Partner is estimated to be approximately NIS
227.82 million.

The company said it is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit.


QUICKSILVER INC: Recalls 500 Girls' Waist-Drawstring Hoodies
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quiksilver, Inc., of Huntington Beach, Calif., is voluntary
recalling approximately 500 Roxy Girl "Very Nice" Cotton Hoodies.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The cotton hoodie has a waist drawstring that could pose an
entrapment hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines (pdf) to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.

No injuries have been reported.

The cotton hoodie, which zips in front and has a drawstring at
the waist, came in gray with blue lining and cherry with lavender
lining. They were sold in girls' sizes SML-XL. ROXY is printed on
the front of the gray hoodie and on the neck label on both
colors.  The style number, B487857, is printed on the inside care
label near the waist.

The garments were sold at Nordstrom, Macy's, Quiksilver Stores
and various surf, sport, and other retailers nationwide from
April 2009 through August 2009 for approximately $40, and were
manufactured in China.  

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
hoodies to eliminate the hazard or return it to the place of
purchase or to Quiksilver for a full refund.

For additional information contact Quiksilver, Inc. toll-free at
(877) 246-7257 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday
or visit the firm's website at http://www.quiksilverinc.com/

The CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury
reports that are either directly related to this product recall
or involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Defective Odometer Suit Survives
---------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal
reports that a federal judge has refused to dismiss a potential
class action brought by customers who claimed Subaru sold or
leased them cars with defective odometers.  Specifically, the
Honorable George Daniels turned aside Subaru's argument that the
Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. Secs. 32701-32711, does not apply
to the plaintiffs' allegations in Vasilas v. Subaru of America,
Case No. 07-CV-2374 (S.D.N.Y.).  The full story is available at
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202433399855


TIME INC: Sports Illustrated Promotion Comes Under Fire
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Time
Inc. of deceptive trade: offering a "free" Madden NFL video game
for purchase of a $49, six-month subscription to Sports
Illustrated, though a regular six-month subscription costs less
than half that $49, in Bergen County Court, N.J.  A free copy of
the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/27/TimeInc.pdf


TOTAL CALL: Settles "Coppolino" Pre-Paid Calling Card Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Call International, Inc., reached a settlement with
plaintiffs in a nationwide class action lawsuit related to its
sale of prepaid calling cards.  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that Total Call International
distributed or sold prepaid calling cards to consumers without
fully disclosing the applicable rates and fees associated with
those cards.  As part of the settlement, Total Call International
denies any wrongdoing or liability.  The parties agreed to the
settlement to avoid further costs and uncertainties related to
litigation.

Based upon allegations in class action lawsuits around the
country, the prepaid calling card industry has been accused of
failing to clearly disclose their rates and fees.  Notably, IDT
settled such a class action lawsuit in January of 2007 by
establishing a $20 million settlement fund; and Locus
Telecommunications settled such a class action lawsuit in
December of 2008 by establishing a $3.6 million settlement fund.

The class action, Coppolino v. Total Call International, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 08-539 (D. N.J.), remains pending until the
settlement agreement is given final approval by the Court.  The
settlement affects customers who purchased a Total Call
International calling card in the United States at any time
between January 1, 1999, and July 28, 2009.  The settlement will
provide refund PINs to those people who either submit a PIN
number from an eligible Total Call International calling card or
submit a notarized, written statement declaring that they were
the purchaser of an eligible Total Call International calling
card. Total Call International agreed to provide refund PINs
worth up to $1.9 million to eligible consumers of Total Call
International calling cards.  Eligible consumers are entitled to
a refund PIN with a value of $0.50 for domestic calls at $0.10
per minute and international calls to certain countries at $0.25
per minute.

If the settlement receives final approval by the Court, members
of the settlement class can submit a claim by following
instructions at 1-800-546-8305, at Total Call International's Web
site at http://www.totalcallusa.com/newsor at the Web site of  
plaintiffs' counsel at http://www.freedweiss.com/  

In order to be subject to the settlement, the Total Call
International calling card must have been purchased on or before
July 28, 2009.  Members of the settlement class requesting a
refund PIN will be required to provide their names and addresses,
and the name of the calling card associated with the PIN number
being submitted.  Total Call International will then determine
whether the member of the settlement class is eligible for a
refund based on confirmation of a legitimate PIN and remaining
funds in the pool.  If eligible, Total Call International will
provide members of the settlement class with a refund PIN.

The plaintiffs in Coppolino v. Total Call International, Inc. are
represented by Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, James Cecchi, Esq.,
of Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein,
and Paul M. Weiss, Esq., of Freed & Weiss LLC and by other class
counsel.  Class members may contact Class Counsel at
Info@FreedWeiss.com or (312) 220-0000.

Total Call International is represented by Joseph Boyle, Esq.,
Danny Adams, Esq., and Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq., of Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP.  


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Roman Shade Recall
-----------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn Kids/Williams-Sonoma, Inc. of San Francisco, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of 85,000 Roman shades.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child places their neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
their neck.

There have been six reports of children becoming entangled in the
exposed inner cord on the back of the shade between March 2006
and July 2008.  Four children were found with cords entangled
around their necks.  Scissors were used to release two of these
children.  Two children were found with red marks around their
necks after having freed themselves.  No permanent injuries were
sustained.

This recall involves all sizes and colors of Pottery Barn Kids
roman shades with exposed inner cords on the back.  Two sewn-in
labels are located at the bottom edge of the shade.  The smaller
label identifies the manufacturer as "pottery barn kids" while
the second larger orange, black and white label warns that "Cords
and bead chains can loop around child's neck and STRANGLE."  
Roman shades with a fabric covering over the cords are not being
recalled.

The shades were sold in Pottery Barn Kids catalog nationwide and
through the firm's Web site at http://www.potterybarnkids.com/
from January 2003 through May 2007 for between $30 and $60.

The shades were manufactured in China and Hong Kong.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roman shades
and contact Pottery Barn Kids to receive a merchandise card for
the purchase value.

For additional information, contact Pottery Barn Kids toll-free
at (800) 492-1949 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.potterybarnkids.com/
  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Shareholder Suit Filed in San Francisco
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim that Bare
Escentuals made false and misleading statements in its
registration statement and prospectus.  A copy of the lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/08/26/SCABare.pdf


BEAR ESCENTUALS: Scott+Scott File Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2009, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint against Bare Escentuals, Inc., and certain current and
former directors and executives and its investment bankers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
action for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on
behalf of those purchasing Bare Escentuals common stock during
the period beginning September 28, 2006, through October 31,
2008, inclusive, including purchases of common stock issued
pursuant or traceable to the false and misleading Registration
Statements and Prospectus filed in connection with the Company's
September 28, 2006 initial public offering and March 14, 2007
follow-on-offering.

If you purchased Bare Escentuals common stock during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you
must move the Court no later than September 15, 2009. Any member
of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott at scottlaw@scott-scott.com by
e-mail, (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 by telephone, or visit
the Scott+Scott Web site at http://www.scott-scott.com/for more  
information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Bare
Escentuals, a developer, marketer and seller of skin care and
body care products, made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's sales and financial
performance. As a result, the plaintiff and other members of the
Class have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as
a result of their purchase of Bare Escentuals' common stock
during the Class Period, as well as in the initial public
offering and March 2007 offering, at artificially inflated
prices.

The complaint alleges that Bare Escentuals, certain of the
Company's officers and directors and its investment bankers
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material adverse facts required to prevent other
statements from being materially false or misleading. The scheme:
(i) misstated Bare Escentuals' business, operations and the
intrinsic value of Bare Escentuals common stock; (ii) allowed
Company insiders to collectively sell tens of millions of shares
of their personally-held Bare Escentuals common stock at
artificially inflated prices, receiving hundreds of millions in
proceeds; and (iii) caused Plaintiff and members of the Class to
purchase Bare Escentuals common stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The false and misleading statements issued by the Company had the
intended effect and caused Bare Escentuals common stock to trade
at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period,
reaching as high as $42.99 per share on May 30, 2007. By failing
to disclose to investors that the Company was experiencing
weakness in its infomercial business and related sales and
operational defects and difficulties, the picture of Bare
Escentuals' business and prospects presented to the investing
public was false and misleading.

As a direct result of a series of partial disclosures beginning
on June 5, 2007, and extending through October 31, 2008, the
price of Bare Escentuals common stock declined sharply. As the
truth about Bare Escentuals and its financial operations reached
the market, including management's October 31, 2008 announcement
that it would be forced to slash prices and cut the Company's
financial guidance going forward, the price of the Company's
common stock plummeted to as low as $4.20 per share in intraday
trading, almost 80% below the IPO price and more than 87% below
the March 2007 Offering price.


CARDIONET INC: Bernard Gross Files Shareholder Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 09-cv-3894, on behalf of common stock
purchasers of CardioNet, Inc. (Nasdaq:BEAT) between April 30,
2009, and June 30, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending
before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell.  If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days
from today.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross, Esq., or
Susan R. Gross, Esq., at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via
email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com.  
Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges CardioNet and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CardioNet is the leading provider of ambulatory, continuous,
real-time outpatient management solutions for the monitoring of
clinical information on an individual's health.

During the Class Period, defendants made positive statements
about the Company's revenues and earnings knowingly or recklessly
disregarded that it was currently experiencing reductions in its
reimbursement rates for its MCOT services and that these
reimbursement rates were under review by payors, and a reduction
in rates could result in the Company's current independent
business model not being economically viable. Defendants'
financial outlook for 2009, 2010 and 2011 had no reasonable basis
in fact because it was based on the current $1,123.07 rate for
the MCOT system, which rate Defendants knew was under review by
payors and which was likely to be reduced because of, inter alia,
the cost-driven reimbursement environment which was driving down
virtually all reimbursement levels set by commercial providers.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of CardioNet, Inc. between April 30,
2009 and June 30, 2009, inclusive.


PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August 27,
2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Real Estate ProShares
fund, an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust,
pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading
Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of
Additional Information issued in connection with shares of the
SRS Fund.  The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Bernstein Liebhard LLP
is also investigating claims concerning other leveraged ETFs sold
by ProShares.

The complaint names ProShares, ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg,
Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as
defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as
"simple" directional plays.  As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs
are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are
designed to go up when markets go down.  The SRS Fund is one of
ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SRS Fund seeks investment results
that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of
the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index ("DJREI"), which measures
the performance of the real estate sector of the U.S. equity
market.  Accordingly, the SRS Fund is supposed to deliver double
the inverse return of the DJREI, which fell approximately 39.2
percent from January 2, 2008, through December 17, 2008,
ostensibly creating a profit for investors who anticipated a
decline in the U.S. real estate market.  In other words, the SRS
Fund should have appreciated by 78.4 percent during this period.  
However, the SRS Fund actually fell approximately 48.2 percent
during this period-the antithesis of a directional play.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act
by failing to disclose the following risks in the Registration
Statement: (1) if SRS Fund shares were held for a time period
longer than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic losses was
huge; (2) the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would
inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI-i.e., the
overwhelming probability, if not certainty, of spectacular
divergence; (3) the severe consequences of high market volatility
on the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance; (4) the
severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of
high market volatility on the SRS Fund's performance; (5) the
role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market volatility,
particularly in the last hour of trading; (6) the consequences of
the SRS Fund's daily hedge adjustment always going in the same
direction as the movement of the underlying index,
notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; and (7) the
SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the SRS Fund.  If
you purchased or otherwise acquired SRS Fund shares, and either
lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may
wish to join in the action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order
to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the
applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than October
5, 2009.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights as a potential
Class member or lead plaintiff, please contact Christian Siebott
or Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities and
consumer cases and recovered approximately $2 billion for its
clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last six years.

You can view a copy of the complaint online at
http://www.bernlieb.com,or obtain it from the court.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Holzer Holzer Files Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., common stock
between May 14, 2007, and June 9, 2009, inclusive.  The complaint
alleges that Skilled Healthcare and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws.  According to the
complaint, Skilled Healthcare misrepresented its income and was
forced to restate its financial statements.  The complaint also
seeks damages for what it alleges were similar misrepresentations
contained in Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with Skilled Healthcares' Initial Public
Offering of May 14, 2007.

If you purchased shares of Skilled Healthcare common stock during
the Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court
to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Any such request must satisfy
certain criteria and be made no later than September 22, 2009.
Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you are a
Skilled Healthcare investor and would like to discuss a potential
lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with
respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr.,
Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-
mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *